Compubahn is a temp company, right? I thought the rule for temping is that when they place you with a firm, then for six months you can't go permanent for that firm without the firm paying penalties. Also, if they get you an interview with a firm, for six months you can't go back and represent yourself to that firm. During the six months, only the temp company can send you back to that firm, and they get a finder's fee. Otherwise, no firm would pay the fee, they would just solicit you directly after the interview. The temp company can try to make the period longer than six months if they are unscrupulous. If California found that this interferes with the free movement of labor, then the game is changing. How this relates to H1B's I don't understand.

Annie Weaver
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 17, 2001
Posts: 50

posted May 02, 2001 06:07:00

0

found out in Virginia, USA it is illegal to charge the finder's fee to the employee. It has to go to the firm where the employee is placed.

Ya, this is just another example of why the H-1B system needs to be reverted back to an academic/research Ph.d-only system. Body shops try to enslave their "employees" through intimidating and illegal contracts as standard practice. No wonder H-1Bs can be so much more attractive than US Citizens/Residents- in addition to being paid below market salary, they are nearly indentured servants. If the US is to have a system for dealing with "labor shortages" it should be by a special Permanent Resident quota renewed year by year. People who have high education and skills should be welcomed, within a certain quota each year, but be given green cards as part of sponsorship, entitling them to full legal rights- so they can move freely, start businesses, and otherwise pursue a full life. Hopefully most of those would become US Citizens in time.

ok. So, who is writing Congress or the lobbyists about some real change in policy-making? or, maybe we should spam email the politicians about this.

Michael Pearson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 11, 2001
Posts: 351

posted May 03, 2001 01:03:00

0

Daniel, I agree with your take on contractual obligations and taking the time to understand what you are signing. Your story should be heeded by all. The only reason this guy got out of paying $77,000 for breaking his contract was due to a loophole in California law. I'm sure in most states he would not have gotten off so easily. Mike